Talk:Jurassic Park (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jurassic Park (film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Featured article star Jurassic Park (film) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 9, 2008.


Contents

[edit] Passed GA

Nicely done, well referenced. Automated peer review suggestions are:

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
OK. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
No. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • is considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), mold (A) (British: mould), programme (B) (American: program ).
  • Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, don't, doesn't.
  • The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.[?]
Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

DoomsDay349 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The article on Jurassic Park the novel had the following among its trivia section, whch I think pertain more to the film:

I didn't want to mess up the prose and didn't find any place to reasonably insert these in the present article. If others think they're important enough, they could be worked into one of the sections. If not, I'd just leave them here. Dinoguy2 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking here. However, trivia sections are usually discouraged because of the reason that you mentioned -- they don't have a strong place in the rest of the article. This usually indicates that the content may not be very encyclopedic for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence revision

Just one thing I'd like to be revised, this sentence about the ride: "The Universal Studios theme park rides themselves act as a kind of sequel to the films. They supposedly contacted Hammond to rebuild his park at their ride location." It seems awkward to say "a kind of sequel" -- why not say "continuation" or something like that? And the second sentence could be cleared up. I assume that it was the official "story" for the ride, that the studio hired the fictional Hammond to build it? It's not as clear as it could be, I think. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

We could just say "The Universal Studios theme park rides have been designed to support the film's plot" and leave the bit about Hammond out altogether. Pasi 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I kinda like that. It's short and sweet, right to the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the article now. Someone may want to further refine that sentence but I think it's definitely more encyclopaedic now. Pasi 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FA

Congratulations on bringing this article up to the FA status! Any further comments shall be welcomed. Sjones23 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soundtrack

Should something about the soundtrack be included?

There is. And sign your comments. Alientraveller 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Godzilla

Jurassic Park has inspired films and documentaries such as Godzilla So, nothing to do with the 40-odd year history of Godzilla films at the time Hollywood dropped it's pants and pooped out it's version? Optimus Sledge 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Jurassic Park had more on an influence on the 1998 Godzilla than the original films did. Alientraveller 11:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Since that sentence links to the 1998 Godzilla film, it's obvious that that is the one we are talking about and not the Jap series. ColdFusion650 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
So the '98 fillm about a giant lizard created by atomic testing wrecking a city was more influenced by a film about a zoo than a series of films about giant lizards created by atomic testing wrecking cities? Yeah, not quite seeing the reasoning there. Optimus Sledge 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Well just go with the citation. The new Godzilla film egged much of Jurassic Park, from its design of the monster to all those raptor-style babies. Alientraveller 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The original Godzilla was not created by atomic testing. It was naturally occurring. And to say that Jurassic Park is nothing more than a movie about a zoo, come on. Besides, watch the T. rex rampage through San Diego and tell me there's no a similarity. ColdFusion650 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
That would require me watching the sequel to an already tedious movie. As this article is about Jurassic Park, not the sequel, that comment has no relevance here. Besides, are you seriously saying the idea of a giant monster rampaging through a city in the sequel wasn't inspired by Godzilla?Optimus Sledge 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You don't fall under WP:RS. Alientraveller 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

... could that have been less relevant? Optimus Sledge 10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's relevant: you're arguing with a magazine over how much the American Godzilla aped Jurassic Park. Alientraveller 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll let you in on a secret: just cos it's printed doesn't mean it's true. In this case, it's pretty obviously bollocks. Optimus Sledge 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, where bollocks published by reliable sources is more important than truth. And truth is the 1998 Godzilla was a lot like Jurassic Park, down to the raptor rip-off babies. Alientraveller 10:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the search for fact not truth. If you're interested in truth, take philosophy. ColdFusion650 11:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Just wondering, how is Jurassic Park of top importance? Top importance means you MUST know about it to have any understanding of film. I don't see how that's the case with this one. I'm not knocking it, just saying.--YellowTapedR 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It started a revolution in special effects with photo-real dinosaurs. And it's a very famous film: the encyclopedia would be incomplete without it. But the whole importance issue is really vague: it was never specified with importance is given to genres or films. Alientraveller 09:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Importance is completely subjective. So, basically, it's an unofficial vote. ColdFusion650 11:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Differences Between the Book and the Film

Do you want me to start writing a section about the differences between the book and the film? --Wexer9 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, why changes were made is discussed in production, and far better than an indiscriminate list. Alientraveller 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right, that is a pretty good section. A list would be unnecessary. Thanks for responding. --Wexer9 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like you to do so, or at least make a link to this article in an appropriate place. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not a reliable source though. Again, what's important is why. Alientraveller 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Editor is trying to justify inclusion of differences between Harry Potter books and films without the why, hence the petition for this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The why is that people will likely have an interest in these kinds of differences and they concern fairly popular media. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the production section does not even cover all the major changes between the movie and the book, let alone slightly minor changes. An "indiscriminate list" as Alientraveller puts it would more coherantly put forth changes in a format that would be easy for readers to navigate and digest. In short, it's much more effective in getting the information across. As to why we would do this, because people want to know this sort of thing. You might as well ask why wikipedia is here at all. --Malacro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.67 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is policy. Alientraveller 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What source would you draw the differences from? Have they been listed in published media? If it is just a Wikipedia editor viewing both the movie and the book, and listing differecne, that is original research or synthesis and is not allowed. This is not a fan page--if it's not notable to have appeared in some kind of official source, it's not worth repeating here. Create a personal web site for such information. Dinoguy2 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Malcolm's occupation

On the 'cast' section it states that Dr Ian Malcolm's occupation is Mathematician, when in fact he is a chaostician... chaostician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.199.8 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chaos theory is maths. I've never heard that term before either. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
He was joking. It's a gag on what Malcolm said in the movie. ScienceApe (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Please see here for relevant discussion: Talk:Jurassic_Park#Notability. - JTBX (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Distribution" section

The readers are dying to be let in on the "on-set joke of Spielberg's". What joke? --Milkbreath (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The complete sentence is: "The film was marketed with the tagline "An Adventure 65 Million Years In The Making", which was an on-set joke of Spielberg's regarding the genuine mosquito in amber used for Hammond's walking stick.[46]"
So apparently Spielberg saw the amber, and said: "He, it's an adventure 65 Million Years In The Making!" As the thoughts of an artist are sometimes hard to follow, perhaps we should just say that Spielberg came up with the tag line? Or am I missing something? Cheers, Face 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you think there is a joke in there somewhere, you are missing something. And the sentence says that Speilberg's "joke" concerned the mosquito, not the amber. I do not have access to the work referenced, or I would check for myself. It would be good to get this little anecdote straight because it is interesting. As it stands, though, the sentence verges on nonsense. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, Alientraveller just changed it: "this was a joke Spielberg made on set about the genuine amber with a real mosquito preserved within that was used for Hammond's walking stick.[46]"
Well, you can reword it, but it's still a weird joke. Not nonsense, just strange. Cheers, Face 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've now boldly changed it to this: "This was a joke Spielberg made on set about the genuine, millions of years old mosquito in amber used for Hammond's walking stick."
I added the "millions of years old" because I think the similarity between the mosquito and the tagline is that both have a connection with something that happened for about 65 million years. Cheers, Face 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dinosaur names

It was wrong to put the italics back. This article uses dinosaur names as common names. The Wikiproject Dinosaurs is very clear about it. These are not real dinosaurs, anyhow. The only place where the genus/species nomenclature is called for is in the part where it discusses parallels between the screen monsters and real dinosaurs. I wish you had asked about this before undoing all my work. I intend to put it back right if I feel up to it. It too often happens that when I come in and copyedit I find somebody squatting on the article like a badger, and I get bit, and I'm getting a little sick of it. --Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)-Milkbreath (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't be own-ish. "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it." (FYI, to the best of my knowledge I have never edited or even seen this article before, so I personally am certainly not "squatting on the article like a badger".)
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Dinosaur_taxa_naming_conventions: "When a species is mentioned (on its own page or another), the scientific binomial name should at least be mentioned once. After this, the genus name or common name can be used....Do not use common names too much, they look amateuristic. If you use them, realise that you are referring to the genus, or to an order ending on -ia." -- IMHO, this is not "very" clear regarding the names of fictionalized dinosaurs. And even if the dinosaurs here are fictionalized, the scientific names are real. (In other words, I'm not sure that you're right, and I'm not sure that you're wrong.)
-- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There are no common names for Mesozoic dinosaurs, and it would look incorrect and unprofessional to "invent" them by using lowercase generic names. The only time this is appropriate is when you use, say "tyrannosaur", not "tyrannosaurus". But even then, the term tyrannosaur needs to have enough context so that you know you're talking about Tyrannosaurus and not any generic tyrannosaurid. The WP:Dino quote above is referring to common names like tyrannosaur, btw, not to misspellings like tyrannosaurus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gossip

"Stan Winston joined together with IBM and director James Cameron to form Digital Domain, saying, "If I didn't get involved, I was going to become the dinosaur."[84]"

Please remove gossip from the article. It is promotional language and provides no insights. Arebenti (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It provides insight in the fact that Winston joined Cameron to form the company Digital Domain because he was inspired by the cgi of this movie. This is not a gossip, but a fact. The quote might be a bit off the mark here however. It seems to describe Winston's enthousiasm about his involvement with the film, instead of his enthousiasm about the new technology. Perhaps we should use this: "I realized in the middle of Jurassic Park that we have this wonderful new tool [in computer graphics]." - Face 18:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)